Euro on LPG ???

**coladuna** · 18-08-2006 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by Jaso

Not every government scheme or grant is going to benefit everyone. If government funding goes to a hospitol are you going to complain just because you dont use that hospitol...?

Of course it doesn't, but did you know that the current percentage of LPG vehicles on the road account for something like 4% of the total number of cars registered in Australia? Even with the rebate, can't see that number going off the chart or anything. So you think a subsidy that only helps a mere 10% of the population AT BEST is a smart idea? I think not.
BTW, please learn to spell HOSPITAL rather than saying HOSPITOL. it's cracking me up.

Originally Posted by Jaso

There is demand for new and used LPG cars weather they are new or used. I know about three guys that run their falcons (Fairmont Ghias {Top of the line} RRP from $52,860 + onroads) on LPG. Someone else I know bought an LPG converted nissan patrol for $70, 000+. (Is $70, 000+ upmarket???)

That proves there's a high demand, does it? You must know the entire Australian population.

Originally Posted by Jaso

The bottem line is that the LPG grant is a generous offering designed to help those who beleive they may benefit from a conversion of their vehicle to LPG. Of course its not going to benefit everyone...

Sure it's better than doing nothing, but John Howard is desperate because of people complaining of combined effect of interest rate rise, petrol price hike and grocery price. It was a desperate measure to get some points off the voters.

**aaronng** · 18-08-2006 09:03 PM

My friend bought an ex-taxi LPG Falcon. Why? Because it was cheap $5000. Running costs? Same as petrol because of the reduced mileage.

**Chris_F** · 18-08-2006 09:14 PM

^ if thats the case why do the cabbies even bother?

**Jaso** · 18-08-2006 09:30 PM

Because they do enough driving per annum to make an LPG conversion viable.

@ coladuna

To cut the fuel price by 10c/litre it would cost the government 2-3 billion dollars each fiscal year. The idea of the government grant was to encourage diversity in the use of fuels and not a dependance on a single one. (Facts from HOR Question time

)

**msnealo** · 18-08-2006 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by aaronng

EPA tests are usually under low load cruising conditions. Real life however include hills, overtaking and traffic lights.

Taken from here
fuel labels

"The new test cycle simulates an 11 km trip with an average speed of 33.6 km/h. Approximately two thirds of the test time simulates urban-stop-go driving where the average speed is 18.8 km/h with the final third of the test drive time being similar to driving on a highway with the vehicle driven up to over 100km/h"

**yfin** · 18-08-2006 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by msnealo

Taken from here
fuel labels

"The new test cycle simulates an 11 km trip with an average speed of 33.6 km/h. Approximately two thirds of the test time simulates urban-stop-go driving where the average speed is 18.8 km/h with the final third of the test drive time being similar to driving on a highway with the vehicle driven up to over 100km/h"

So 33% is highway speeds.

I think they should scrap the combined test - having a city test would be far more useful IMO. So many people complain about not achieving the quoted "combined" figure. That is because most of us don't spend 33% of driving on the freeway in top gear. The new V8 commodores must be getting easily 17+ around town to drop down to a 14 combined.

**aaronng** · 19-08-2006 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by msnealo

Taken from here
fuel labels

"The new test cycle simulates an 11 km trip with an average speed of 33.6 km/h. Approximately two thirds of the test time simulates urban-stop-go driving where the average speed is 18.8 km/h with the final third of the test drive time being similar to driving on a highway with the vehicle driven up to over 100km/h"

It doesn't mention for stop-go driving whether they give it more throttle to reach the speed of travel or if they use as little throttle as possible to get it up to speed. Neither are RPM shift points mentioned. I've driven with light throttle, shifting at 2000rpm and got 9.5L/100km in 80% city, 20% highway. So if you drive in that manner, you can get to the level of the fuel consumption label. Do most people drive like that? I think not. Because I was being overtaken at the lights by grannies driving the 1997 model Camry 2.2L auto. Heck, tiny daewoos, hyundais and even Daihatsu Terios' were quicker than I was. But at least I got better fuel consumption than the Terios (mum's Terios does 13L/100km in the city).